Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

A few days ago I naively commented on this community forum (at the thread on CMI and first life, though most of my comments relating to Lisle have been at the thread on the limits of observational science):"Few YECs allow such a 'free for all' expression of viewpoints on their websites/blogs - to his credit I have recently found that Jason Lisle appears to permit this".

But I need greatly to revise my opinion of Mr Lisle.

It turns out he is just another DISHONEST, FACT-TWISTING, PRESUMPTUOUS, YEC IDEOLOGUE. If anybody questions YEC propaganda on his blog, he SEEKS TO BLACKEN THEIR NAME AND RIDICULE THEIR ARGUMENTS (THAT HIS SUPPORTERS WERE UNABLE TO DEAL WITH).

What am I referring to, you may ask? THIS.

THAT HE HAS GONE THROUGH MY POSTS, EDITING AND ANNOTATING THEM WITH SARCASTIC AND UNFAIR COMMENTS IN SQUARE BRACKETS. HE HAS DONE THIS SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE POSTS WERE MADE, APPARENTLY HOPING I WOULD NOT LOOK AT THE POSTS AGAIN. HE HAS NOT FLAGGED HIS COMMENTS TO ME - AND BECAUSE HIS COMMENTS ARE NOT NEW POSTS BUT EDITS TO/GLOSSES ON MY POSTS, HIS COMMENTS DO NOT APPEAR AS 'NEW POSTS' LISTED AT THE TOP OF THE BLOG.

HE HAS ALSO MOSTLY AVOIDED DIRECT EXCHANGES WITH ME (THOUGH HE HAS BEEN REGULARLY INTERACTING WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO APPEAR TO BE FELLOW YECS) - AND DONE THIS ANNOTATING 'BEHIND MY BACK'.

My next post will give an example of his behaviour. Judge for yourselves!

Of course, it is possible than his biased fans also might not spot his comments in square brackets (and a different print colour) - and his rather UNDERHAND behaviour.

If he has an issue with what I write he should answer me DIRECT and try to do so PROMPTLY. Is that too much to ask?

YECs are not to be trusted.

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[translation: “I can’t answer your question because I wasn’t expecting you to call my bluff. So I’m just going to claim it’s a time waster.” If a person is going to demean someone else’s position as “far-fetched,” it is ethically incumbent on that person to at least provide a reason. I hope that readers are beginning to see just how arbitrary evolutionists can be. They just don’t have good reasons for their beliefs.]

You have not refuted what I wrote at the Amazon.com review and reproduced here – assuming you actually read it.

[Virtually all of Ashley’s claims have been addressed here and refuted. Yet, he does not extend the same courtesy to others by actually answering their questions. We’re all still waiting on Ashley’s answer to how laws of nature can exist and have their properties in an evolutionary universe. You would think this would be easy to answer for someone who claims to value science, since science is not possible apart from universal laws of nature.]

You are asking questions that require no further answer to the one already offered which you have not shown to be incorrect based on what we see and what is known. The universe obeys scientific laws – fact.

[That’s not the question. The question is: how can you account for such laws in a chance universe? How do you know that they are universal and unchanging? Frankly, how can you be sure that your mind and senses are reliable, considering that they were not designed (if evolution were true)?]

“You seem to be implying that if an explanation is more complex, it is more true or convincing.” In the case I referred to, yes.

[In science, it’s just the opposite. Simpler explanations are more likely to be true. This is the principle of Occam’s Razor. We can see here that Ashley’s position is contrary to science.]

“If I’m not getting too personal, may I ask why you walked away from Christianity?” Because God didn’t show up.

[God didn’t do what Ashley wanted Him to do, therefore “Christianity is wrong?” How does that follow logically? By the way, God does reveal Himself constantly. He upholds the entire universe, controlling it and sustaining it in such an orderly way that we can even write equations which describe the clockwork and predictable behavior of the universe. There is no rational explanation for laws of nature and their properties apart from God. Ashley proves God’s existence every time he types a letter on his computer, and expects it to appear on the screen, because God upholds the universe in a consistent and uniform fashion. This is why the Bible teaches that there is literally no excuse for denying God (Romans 1:20).]

And that is ALL I am prepared to say."

After checking how else Lisle may have 'translated' my various comments of several days ago behind my back, I will post a brief response under his blog flagging THIS thread.

It turns out he is just another DISHONEST, FACT-TWISTING, PRESUMPTUOUS, YEC IDEOLOGUE. If anybody questions YEC propaganda on his blog, he SEEKS TO BLACKEN THEIR NAME AND RIDICULE THEIR ARGUMENTS (THAT HIS SUPPORTERS WERE UNABLE TO DEAL WITH).

Ashley you are the epitome of the statement triumph of hope over experience. There are no honest or decent creationists. They have been quote mining and misrepresenting people all their lives - you really didn't think you'd be the exception and be reported honestly?

There is something inherent in the ideology of creationism, (probably the need to lie to everyone including themselves, and the fact that an absence of facts means all they can do is seek to blacken detractors names before the supporters can think) that means they have to be morally bankrupt.

I must admit, like you, I keep trying to see the best in them (Marc disappointed so many times) but it simply isn't there. There is no nice side to any of them.

Yep, I'm still working my way through Lisle's behind my back 'translations' of what I said and what I meant. Which he did not post as a 'new post' (there are well over 200 posts under his latest blog, many of them very lengthy).

Lisle has referred to an 'excellent response' by Micah. Yet Micah FAILED to reply to my last comment to him, reproduced below (it's already visible at the 'limits of observational science' thread):

"Micah

Thanks for looking at my comments made on the Boudreault Amazon.com review of the Dawkins book.

On your first response, human/hominid and dinosaur fossils have never been found buried alongside each other (the latter lived in the sorts of habitats that humans live in, at a warmer time in pre-history - though of course YECs insist this happened less than 5,000 years ago, when the climate was similar to today).

"The floodwaters would have naturally fossilized the things in lower ecological locations first and then fossilized more as the floodwaters rose." Unless you are referring there to plants/trees only, that is a somewhat different notion to the 'head for the hills' idea dogmatically asserted by eg Answers in Genesis. They need something like this, because species which are recent in Earth history, and live in low-lying/coastal locations are not consistently found buried deep in the geologic record - thus YECs have to claim that they fled inland/uphill.

"Because the order in the fossil record is not the result of millions of years of layers being laid down." But what I was attacking was the 'head for the hills' idea, as I made clear at the time as my link showed. You appear to be trying to defend - against real science - something different that would still be, you hope, consistent with Genesis.

"Of course some degree of randomization is allowed...". But there is not enough randomization for the Bible-inspired explanation - viz the flood record is 'explained' by a catastrophic worldwide flood as described in Genesis - to be scientifically plausible as well as a faith position. It is a fact that literally nothing that you could remotely call a mammal has ever been found in Devonian rock or in any older stratum - the words of Dawkins on page 100 of his book.

"randomization makes no sense in the evolutionary view which says that there should be a much more specific order in which creatures show up (i.e. creatures that lived millions of years after another should not appear in the layers before it that are much older)". You are showing ignorance there. We do not see a random record of fossil burial and the old Earth and evolutionary scenario DOES make sense. As some evangelical Christians do admit.

"Yes, and this is supported by the fact that there are fossilized footprints of animals in layers lower than where their bodies are found." All this may show is that there have been various local floods, or landslides and so forth, in Earth's long history.

We find ape-like fossils, and bird fossils buried in higher rock layers in any given place but don't only/mostly find them at higher altitude/further inland locations - as 'head for the hills' would require to be the case. I agree that I should have written "only or mostly fossilised at higher altitude" but that slight correction does not change the point I made at Amazon.com - ape fossils are found high in the fossil record rather than far from the sea/at high altitude.

Creatures which YECs say were buried first by the Flood should still be at the top of the geologic record, because creatures buried later should be found (again at shallow depth) in different locations ie far inland or at altitude. Yet the species which science says are very old and perhaps extinct (which YECs claim were buried first by the flood) are found at DEPTH, often with more recent fossils found higher up in the same location or in rocks of more recent age at other similar locations.

Also, fossils have sometime been found at very great depth.

I doubt that Jason will correct you as that would probably mean agreeing with me.

"Even fossilized ammonites are found in the Himalaya Mountains". What is now these mountains was once below the ocean. Before India collided with Asia. (How would a big flood transport marine shells so far inland to the Himalaya, and at shallow depth/high altitude, as I think most shells do not float but sink?)

"Only an evolutionist would think that the creature survived ‘millions of years’ after the dinosaurs had perished." Only a YEC would deny such a (scientific) finding.

"Still there is an order to the rock layers, it is not an order that describes which animals evolved before which though, it is an order that describes the burial order of the flood." You have not demonstrated that, and at times have tried to pretend that the record of fossil burial is 'random'. There is order and a flood catastrophe does not account for it.

"Also it’s a straw man to say creationists complain about science. We love science, so you’re claim is unfounded." YECs are anti-science. But they have stolen the word 'science' from real scientists in order to falsely claim that their apologetics arguments are 'scientific'. Science must proceed by assuming naturalism (not ruling out God as God could make 'natural' things happen) but YECs oppose naturalism and also claim that the book of Genesis is 'infallible scientific and historical truth' (even after this laudable idea has been proven wrong by real scientific investigation - which fact other less dogmatic Christians eg at Biologos have accepted).

"You assume the refutations are against science without providing any backup to your claim." I have backed up my claims here.

"You did not provide a reason for why lying would be wrong in an evolutionary worldview, and sorry, but I don’t think you can." So what if I can't? YECs need to understand that this does not invalidate the (mainstream) science that their critics put forward.

I forgot to point out that science/scientists knows/know that stars do NOT explode after less than 6,000 years of existence. They simply don't.

"How so?" YECs add things to scripture eg a fossil record or a 'rapid' ice age that are not there. But in the case of evolution/millions of years they refuse to do the same."

I am also sending one of my wide-circulation emails about Lisle for information.

I am more convinced than ever that YECs believe that only Christians - the ones who agree with them - are capable of being rational or truthful.

More Lisle handiwork (note that Micah did NOT reply to my last post addressed to him, which refuted his to me). It's my post timed at 5.24 pm on 11 April, as annotated by Lisle:

"I did NOT misrepresent you, Jason.

[editor’s note: To make these posts easier to read, I’ll interject my comments here, rather than copy and repost Ashley’s entire message and then add comments as I normally do. See also Micah’s excellent response below.]

These are YOUR words:“Whether framed as “Rationality vs. faith” or “science vs. religion,” the implication of framing the debate this way is that the Bible is anti-reason, anti-science, anti-rational”;“So when people reason from an ultimate standard that is not God’s Word, they are really simply basing their thinking on an arbitrary opinion”.These were MY words:“Jason referred to scientific reasoning as being merely ‘an arbitrary opinion’”.

[Ashley’s words do not match my words, as anyone can see. I have never referred to scientific reasoning as an arbitrary opinion. Since science is based on biblical creation principles (God upholding the universe in a uniform and mathematical way, God creating the human mind and senses to be able to probe that universe, etc.) it is not arbitrary. We have a good reason to trust in the methods of science since the Bible is true. Of course, if the Bible were not true, then we wouldn’t have any reason to trust in the methods of science. Ashley continues to misrepresent my position.]

“Actually, there is not, nor has there ever been a scientist, nor any human being ever, that has believed in an “old earth” because of scientific evidence.” Untrue.

[“Untrue.” Wow! What a powerful counter-argument! Sarcasm aside, Ashley seems to think that he can just state claims without any evidence or justification and that settles the matter. Okay, if we’re going to play by those rules, then “Creation is true.” Period.]

Your claim about so-called fallacies is bogus – I was referring to science as a discipline not as a ‘thinking entity’. The thinking is done by humans – though they may base their ideas partly on results from computer simulations. Complaints about ‘fallacies’ look suspiciously like an attempt to avoid engaging with real scientific evidence and conclusions from them.

[I would say that the reason Ashley continues to commit logical fallacies is because he is unwilling to engage with actual evidence and rational argumentation.]

I have NOT misrepresented you, Jason. It is correct that young Earth creationists do NOT do science properly. That is why they do not normally submit their ideas to reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[Several mistakes here. I’ll focus only on the last sentence though. It’s false. Creationist publish in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals all the time. Perhaps Ashley would like to define “reputable journals” as those that have evolutionist editors. But then, that would be the “No True Scotsman fallacy.” I could equally well define “reputable journals” as those with creationist editors, and then point out that evolutionists never publish in reputable journals!]

I wrote “You rule out all sensible explanations that don’t fit with your pre-determined (Biblical or Bible-inspired) conclusions”. I note that you have not denied this. Which underlines why you (collectively) cannot get published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

[I’m published in several journals. Some of them are even secular journals with evolutionist editors. So even letting Ashley’s “No True Scotsman fallacy” slide by, he is still wrong.]

“If it is so plainly untrue, then it should have been very easy for Ashley to refute.” I did. I wrote: “Yet – because of the scientific evidence – NO serious scientist who is not a fundamentalist Christian remotely imagines that Earth is only 6,000 years old”. The collective scientific community interpreting real evidence scientifically is not an ‘arbitrary’ process.

[Ashley doesn’t seem to realize that the appeal to majority/authority is a fallacy, not a sound argument. There was a time when the collective scientific community believed that our galaxy was the only one. Did that make it true? Opinions are not evidence. Ashley says that the collective scientific community interpreting real evidence scientifically is not arbitrary. But in his worldview, the collective scientific community is simply a bunch of chemicals that evolved by accident, that use a process assuming uniformity in nature for no rational reason. How could that be anything but arbitrary?]

All I’m asking is for a reason for why the universe has laws of nature that are often mathematical…”. It would be impossible for a universe to exist where two plus two did not equal four, so mathematics is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists. Also, the claim that a ‘godless universe’ would be utterly chaotic and without ‘laws of nature’ is without scientific foundation.

[See Micah’s answer to this below. Ashley again makes claims with no support.]

Some Bible believing Christians do REAL science. But young Earth creationism is religious apologetics and not real science.

“If evolution were true, scientific laws would be nothing more than an arbitrary opinion.” No they would not.

[Wow! Another brilliant counterargument! Sarcasm aside, I could (hypothetically) respond with equal arbitrariness. “Oh yes they would!” To which Ashley would no doubt reply: “No they wouldn’t!!!” Then I could say “Yes they would! – times infinity!!!” and then Ashley could say, “No they wouldn’t! – times infinity plus one!!” But that would be intellectually childish. Rational people give reasons for their claims. You’ll notice that we creationists have good reasons for our position. Evolutionists don’t. And that’s the point. Ashley continues to demonstrate this.]

“Science is predicated on presuppositions that only make sense in a creation-based worldview.” Science (the kind of science that young Earth creationists object to eg interpreting past events) is predicated based on no such thing. Naturalism makes no sense in YOUR worldview but plenty if you believe in real science – rather than YEC apologetics used as a replacement ‘science’.

[Again, Ashley commits the No True Scotsman fallacy – “real science.” Even historical science requires the biblical presupposition of uniformity. If God did not uphold the universe in a consistent and orderly way, there would be no way to interpret any past event, since literally anything could have happened. Naturalism is incompatible with science, because science requires uniformity, and naturalism cannot justify uniformity.]

“If our senses were unreliable, if our minds were irrational, if the universe were chance and not upheld by a mind, there would be no science.” That is a purely hypothetical scenario. The real scenario is that the universe exists, mathematics exists, there are natural laws, and humans have intelligent minds. Thus humans have scientific knowledge. God may or may exist too, but he is invisible if he does.

[The scenario that Ashley would like to believe is “purely hypothetical” is in fact that scenario that his worldview demands. He then makes another list of arbitrary claims that he cannot support within his worldview: mathematics exists (How can he justify conceptual truths like laws of mathematics in a chance universe?) There are natural laws (Why? How can you have such laws without a Law-giver, and why would they be universal and invariant – in a chance universe?) Humans have intelligent minds (Not all of them apparently. And why in the world would an evolutionist assume that a brain, which in his view is nothing more than the product of unintelligent chance mutations, should be capable of rational thought? If people are just chemical accidents, why trust that their minds would be any more reliable than a magic 8-ball?)]

[Ashley then says, “God may or may [not] [sic] exist too…” (I’m sure that the Lord is relieved that He now has Ashley’s permission to exist!) “but he is invisible if he does.” Yes, the biblical God is a spirit, not a ball of wax or a tractor or something made up of atoms. And yet God has manifested Himself inescapably to man such that the invisible aspects of God are clearly seen by what has been made, to the point that there is literally no excuse for disbelief (Romans 1:18-20). Ashley demonstrates his suppressed knowledge of God by relying on conditions that only make sense if the biblical God is who He claims to be: conditions such as uniformity in nature, invariant and universal laws of logic and laws of mathematics, things that are necessary for science.]

“Ashley just hasn’t done his homework on this issue. There are many scholarly works showing how the global flood does make sense of the order of fossils – how organisms that live in lower ecological zones tend to be found in lower layers, etc. Creationists have been studying and writing on this topic since the 1960s. Ashley is a half-century behind the times.” Drivel. I have indeed read what eg Answers in Genesis say about this. It is nonsense, as I have pointed out to them in detail. And IF you wish I will post here a lengthy rebuttal I made to another YEC under his Amazon.com review of ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ where Dawkins highlighted the ridiculous nature of YEC ‘head for the hills’ during Noah’s Flood notions explaining the fossil record (the YEC ignored the rebuttal).

[More arbitrary claims. Ashley is welcome to post scientific claims, but since science only makes sense in a Christian worldview, it will only prove my point.]

Some comments to Micah which I will try to keep brief.

“Its not because of the scientific evidence though. Its because they are willfully ignorant.” No – the scientific evidence is REAL.

[Micah never claimed that the scientific evidence isn’t real. Rather, he correctly explained why the evolutionists refuse to believe in creation despite the overwhelming evidence for it.]

“If you were not suggesting that science is a living, thinking being, then you shouldn’t give it living, thinking qualities…”. I did not seek to do so (as I have explained above) and you and Jason have misconstrued my words.

[Ashley reified ‘science’ – which is fallacious, plain and simple.]

Evolution is a biological theory, so it does not ‘explain’ the reality of mathematics, nor does it need to. That does not invalidate the theory.

[Theories must be compatible with reality if they are to be taken seriously. Evolution is not compatible with the notion of universal invariant laws of mathematics. Therefore, to be consistent, Ashley must either give up his belief in evolution, or his belief in laws of mathematics.]

“All evidence supports the Bible.” If THAT were true, young Earth creationists would agree with the international scientific community regarding origins (but say God did it, as do theistic evolutionists) and in addition they would not condemn ‘historical science’.

[Ashley again commits the fallacy of appeal to majority/authority. He could greatly benefit from a course in the history of science; there are many historical examples where the international scientific community was simply dead wrong. Sometimes such wrong thinking persists in the scientific majority even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary, and the revolution in thought only transpires when the existing generation dies off.]

In what way is the Oort cloud not ‘sensible’? You have not told us.

[The Oort cloud is an arbitrary rescuing device, invoked to protect a belief in deep time from obvious evidence to the contrary.]

“There is no reason, apart from God, to think that those laws should be constant…”. Yes there IS. You forget about observation and experiment. (Which is why I consider YECs anti-scientific.)

[This is the fallacy of begging the question (and a pretty obvious example of it too) as Micah explains below. Observation and experimentation can only give us insights into the universe is there is already some degree of uniformity.]

“A non random fossil record in no way negates Noahs flood.” Real science EXPLAINS the fossil record in ways that Noah’s Flood (and how modern YECs interpret what Genesis says) doesn’t. Again, if Jason or you continue to dispute me, I’m happy to post my rebuttal. It can actually be read on page 12 (when starting with the earliest comments) of the discussions under Joe Boudreault’s review of the Dawkins book.

[Again, we see the “No True Scotsman fallacy” committed when Ashley says that “Real science explains….”]

This response is also being reproduced at the BCSE community forum, together with the link to this blog post.

[That’s okay with me. I’d like as many people as possible to be informed of the ridiculous types of arbitrary claims that evolutionists use to try and persuade people using rhetoric rather than logic. It’s one reason why I am very happy to allow evolutionists to post here. I’m just giving them the rope.]

I don't think I was 'supposed' to see this.

Nasty little man.

I don't think AiG ever told the world why he left them.

EDIT - BRIEF COMMENTS ON LISLE'S CLAIMS

- Scientists reason from 'an ultimate standard' that is not God’s Word. Thus Lisle DID imply that their reasoning is arbitrary. I did not misrepresent nor pretend to be quoting him;- "You’ll notice that we creationists have good reasons for our position. Evolutionists don’t. And that’s the point. Ashley continues to demonstrate this." You would NEVER be satisfied, Jason;- "Naturalism is incompatible with science, because science requires uniformity, and naturalism cannot justify uniformity." What drivel. The theory of evolution, part of science, assumes both naturalism and - where the evidence observed today points to such - uniformity (and uniformitarianism);- "Evolution is not compatible with the notion of universal invariant laws of mathematics". Unsupported, arbitrary assertion and part of Jason's 'rhetoric'.

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

“At one point, Dawkins stumbles into the geological column models when he quotes from a creationist article (I’ve abbreviated it even more here):“INVERTEBRATES…would perish first … followed by silt…AMPHIBIA … would perish next as the waters rose…REPTILES … would be next to die…MAMMALS … after that … from rising water etc…MAN … would exercise most ingenuity – would be last …This sequence is a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the order in which the various fossils are found in the strata. It is NOT the order in which they evolved but the order in which they were inundated at the time of Noah’s flood.”

This order makes perfect sense, according to massive flood geology. But Dawkins goes on to say something like this: “Quite apart from all the other reasons to object to this remarkable explanation, there could only ever be a statistical tendency for mammals, for example, to be on average better at escaping the rising waters than reptiles. Instead, as we should expect on the evolution theory, there literally are no mammals in the lower strata of the geological record. The `head for the hills’ theory would be on more solid ground if there were a statistical tailing off of mammals as you move down through the rocks…” Did you catch that? He objects to the creation model here merely because it conflicts with evolutionary geology, regardless of the fact that flood geology would indeed produce the above scenario. Dawkins, like all evolutionists, can’t abide the idea of another geological event with sensible support for it.”

What tripe.

[Again, we see Ashley’s keen mind at work, giving us a powerful, logical rebuttal to the evidence presented. ]

If, as young earth creationists insist, much of the geologic column is a timeline of the year of the global Flood and records the order in which plants and animals were buried, HOW would that lead to the vast numbers of differing fossils (marine and terrestrial) found well inland at one location along the Grand Canyon: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... sil-record Was magic involved?

[Ashley apparently didn’t read the article he hyperlinked, because it shows that the fossil record is consistent with the expectations of creationists and is contrary to evolutionary expectations. The problem is therefore for evolutionists to explain. For example, reptile footprints are systematically found in lower geologic layers than their fossilized bodies. The same is true of trilobite tracks. It makes sense if they were struggling to escape from rising flood waters. But how could the evidence make sense if the layers were gradually deposited over millions of years? Did the animals make their tracks and then travel forward in time millions of years to die? Was magic involved?]

Note that Jonathan Sarfati did not respond to what Dawkins wrote about the geologic column in his “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution’. I think I know why. I’ve read BOTH books by the way (I reviewed the latter).

If there was just one major flood in Earth’s history (in most places at least), around 4,300 years’ ago, how could species regarded as much older by science…

[Again, Ashley commits the fallacy of reification by suggesting that “science” has an opinion on the age of things. He could have avoided this fallacy by writing “scientists” instead of “science,” but then that would lead us to ask “which scientists?” After all, not all scientists believe that fossils buried in lower rock layers are “much older” than those buried in higher layers. Only those scientists that reject a global flood would believe that. The circular nature of Ashley’s reasoning is easily exposed.]

be buried in one (lower) layer whilst species regarded as younger be buried in a different higher layer in the same general locality?

[This is an obvious fallacy of begging the question. Essentially, Ashley is asking, “Why is it that the organisms that evolutionists believe to be older tend to be found in lower layers?” The answer is, because if they weren’t then evolutionists wouldn’t consider them to be older! ]

(Or do all known fossil bearing sites only have fossils in ONE layer?)

[This is another straw-man argument. Creationists would not expect rabbits, for example, to be found in the lowest geologic layers for this obvious reason: rabbits don’t live on the ocean floor.]

The YECs also claim that more agile or intelligent species fled the floodwaters for a time further inland or to higher ground (not that only those creatures were carried along by the floodwaters prior to burial). Do we find modern species eg ape-like creatures – and also birds for that matter – only fossilised at higher altitude, as the YEC ‘head for the hills’ hypothesis would imply?

[Answer: yes. Apes (note: not “ape-like creatures”, but rather “apes”) and birds are found only in the higher positions in the geologic column. They are not found in the Cambrian, for example. 95% of fossils are marine invertebrates.]

Or is it that we only find them fossilised in higher rock layers in a given place? Answers in Genesis claimed in their ‘News to Note’ (item 5) on 24 March 2012: “Those things in habitats first to be overwhelmed would generally occupy lower positions in the geologic column”. That makes little sense.

Surely what would matter more would be altitude (the same then as now)

[Ashley again misrepresents what Creationists teach. Creationists do not teach that the altitude (in the sense of elevation from sea level) of rocks has always been the same. On the contrary, we believe that modern mountains, for example, were formed from the tectonics associated with the flood, implied in Psalm 104:8.]

– not depth within Earth’s upper crust (regardless of the altitude)? Creatures buried first would have lived at lower altitude, and closer to the coast. But they would still have been buried near the surface (but science dates such creatures as very old).

[Again, we have a reification fallacy with “science” dating things. Scientists often make estimations of the date of something based on physical evidence. But their beliefs about earth’s history always influence those estimates. For example, we find c-14 in virtually all fossils that have sufficient carbon in them. Yet c-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, so it cannot last millions of years. The natural conclusion would be that all fossils are a few thousand years old at most. But this evidence is contrary to evolutionists’ beliefs about the past. Rather than adjust their beliefs, they choose to either ignore the evidence, or try to explain it away by invoking a story without supporting evidence.]

The rodent-like creatures mentioned by AiG are known to have outlived the dinosaurs as they have been found in Tertiary layers as well as Cretaceous ones.

[Actually, that just means that they are buried higher. The rest is evolutionary assumption.]

Even if these creatures lived at similar altitude and in similar habitats to dinosaurs (places allegedly buried at the same time by the flood) the creatures also survived for millions of years after the dinosaurs had perished.

[I don’t think Ashley realizes that he is begging the question. He is trying to argue against the global flood by assuming that the layers represent millions of years – but that would only be the case if there was no global flood.]

And for the YEC scenario to be correct, would that not mean that ‘younger’ rock layers (those bearing recent fossils)…

[“younger” as determined how? “Recent” as determined how? If Ashley uses evolutionist assumptions to estimate the age, and then tries to use that as an argument for evolution/deep time, then he has begged the question.]

should occur near the surface at higher altitude and the ‘older’ rock layers (bearing older fossils) near the surface at lower altitude? Yet many fossils are found very deep down. And continental interiors often contain very old rocks (though some of the highest mountain ranges, including ones well inland, are comparatively young).”

[Actually, the fossils we find in these rock layers often have carbon in them and are not completely mineralized. Whenever we carbon-date them, we get thousands of years, suggesting that all rock layers are thousands of years old. 95% of fossils are marine invertebrates. Yes, marine invertebrates, yet they are found on the continents, not on the ocean floor. Think about that.]

[Note that Ashley continues to expose his suppressed knowledge of God by having confidence in science, which only makes sense in a Christian worldview.]"

EDIT: brief comments on Lisle's rather ridiculous claims:

- "The circular nature of Ashley’s reasoning is easily exposed." There wasn't any;- "This is another straw-man argument. Creationists would not expect rabbits, for example, to be found in the lowest geologic layers for this obvious reason: rabbits don’t live on the ocean floor". NO, it was a QUESTION (not a denial) Jason. Calm down. If places on LAND have more than one fossil-containing rock layer, we would expect to see mammals in both upper and lower layers if Noah's (recent) flood had happened - but we DON'T. Talk of rabbits not living on the ocean floor is simply MUDDYING THE WATERS (pun unintended);- "Apes (note: not “ape-like creatures”, but rather “apes”) and birds are found only in the higher positions in the geologic column". Yes - and THAT supports evolution and an old Earth, not the Bible. In addition, Jason has misunderstood me. My comment in question referred to higher ALTITUDE. Does he think I am stupid?; - "Hardly. Lower areas are generally flooded before higher areas. It’s pretty hard to argue against that". Are you being wilfully dishonest Jason? Or just incompetent? Re-read my words. I did NOT say "lower areas";- "Ashley again misrepresents what Creationists teach". I did NO such thing. I merely made a FACTUAL statement (but I note Jason's implied admission that YECs teach falsehoods - I already knew this); - "Note that Ashley continues to expose his suppressed knowledge of God by having confidence in science, which only makes sense in a Christian worldview." So why are YECs so ANTAGONISTIC towards science?

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

I am most certainly not trying to convert anyone away from Christianity.

Having studied its claims, …

[editor: Ashley seems to be unaware of most creationist research, based on his previous posts. He apparently wasn’t aware that creationist publish in reputable peer-reviewed science journals, he seems to think that creationists are against real science, and he even claimed that I was claiming that science is arbitrary. Given his distortions of creation, I’m inclined to think that Ashley really doesn’t want to believe in creation for emotional reasons rather than legitimate logical reasons.]

I am very strongly of the opinion that young Earth creationism is not science and that it makes misleading claims about genuine science.

[That’s exactly what we’d say about evolutionism. The difference is, science makes sense in a universe upheld by the mind of God. But science makes no sense at all in a chance universe. Why would we have laws of nature?]

I was an evangelical Christian for more than 20 years. Now I am – because of experiences and because of things learnt during that time and since – broadly agnostic about God and Christianity.

[Not for logical reasons. Note that Ashley has yet to provide us with a logical reason to reject creation. He simply states evolutionary claims as fact, as if that were a sound argument. No one has ever rejected the claims of Christianity for logical reasons. I predict that Ashley will continue to demonstrate this.]

I only became aware of YEC-ism since ceasing to attend church here in the UK. Likewise I only studied science properly after leaving church.

[I’m not convinced that Ashley has studied science properly at all, given his previous claims. In fact, he seems to confuse evolution with science. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, (http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ti-science) evolution is really anti-science.]

Ashley"

EDIT: comments on Lisle.

- "he seems to think that creationists are against real science". They frequently are;- "I’m inclined to think that Ashley really doesn’t want to believe in creation for emotional reasons rather than legitimate logical reasons." It's BOTH, Jason;- "No one has ever rejected the claims of Christianity for logical reasons." Jason is assuming that the science which YECs reject is 'illogical';- "I’m not convinced that Ashley has studied science properly at all, given his previous claims". Since I know that I HAVE, as my friends and people on the BCSE site could confirm, this tells me that Jason is not interested in truth just in propaganda and stereotyping of his critics.

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

"Reputable means peer-reviewed by scientists from the international scientific community.

[Ashley seems not to realize that creation journals such as the ARJ and the CRSQ are peer-reviewed by scientists from the international scientific community. They are therefore “reputable” by Ashley’s definition.]

Whereas the journals mentioned here earlier today are peer-reviewed by ‘creation scientists’ who all assent to a particular religious position.

[A religious position such as naturalism? All scientists have a philosophical (‘religious’) worldview in which they evaluate the scientific evidence.]

"It doesn’t work in reverse because evolutionists look at scientific evidence alone.

[That is not true; all scientists interpret evidence in light of a philosophical system or ‘worldview.’ They assume that their senses are basically reliable, that there are laws of logic, and that there is an underlying orderliness to nature. These must be presupposed before any investigation of evidence. Evolutionists further assume naturalism and uniformitarianism.]"

They look at evidence alone, assuming that what they see means something - they DON'T also look at religious texts like the YECs do. They operate on naturalism (that is silent on the existence of God as God apparently does 'natural' things). And they don't always assume uniformitarianism.

“It’s hard to believe you actually believe what you wrote here. You proved Jason’s point.” Why are you lying? I clearly showed that I did NOT misrepresent Jason’s position.

[editor: People visiting this blog might think that Ashley is a fictional person that I made up to make the evolutionists look bad – by pretending to be an evolutionist and posting absurd arguments full of logical fallacies and demonstrably false claims, making it look like evolutionists have a problem with basic reading comprehension. I assure you this is not the case. These are actual posts by an evolutionist.]

Real science is not ‘arbitrary’

[Then Ashley, what is it based on? In the Christian worldview, God upholds the universe in a logically consistent way that doesn’t arbitrarily change with time, and He does so for our benefit. We have every reason to expect the universe to behave in an orderly, logical, mathematical fashion, which is what makes science possible. But Ashley, what is your reason for making such assumptions? It will do no good to say “observation and experimentation” because these are only meaningful if there is already an underlying orderliness. So what is the foundation for science in an evolutionary universe?]

But what you are talking about now is ‘creation science’, is it not?

[All science is creation science. Without the principles of biblical creation, science would be unjustified.]

If God exists the universe which real scientists study…

[“real scientists”: That’s a “no true Scotsman fallacy.”]

…(the scientists YECs complain about) is GOD’S creation. Thus all this talk of reasoning with ‘yourself as the ultimate standard’ is complete hogwash.

[Then what is your ultimate standard Ashley?]

Scientists study real evidence for what it IS (not because they assume in advance that it must be made to ‘confirm’ the book of Genesis and NOTHING else).

[Do they assume in advance that their senses are basically reliable, when they go to study the evidence? Do they assume that there is an underlying orderliness to nature, such that if they pick up a rock, it will continue to be a rock? What is the basis for such assumptions, in a chance and changing universe?]

[When evolutionists come across contrary evidence (C-14 in diamonds, comets, information content in DNA), are they willing to take the evidence at face value – as evidence for biblical creation? Or do they assume in advance that such evidence must be made to ‘conform’ to evolution?]

“This almost isn’t even worth pointing out because it is so obviously arbitrary.” It’s a FACT.

[Ashley just proved Micah’s point, though Ashley seems not to have realized it. An arbitrary claim is one that is made without any supporting evidence. For example, if someone asked me how I know creation is true, suppose I said, “It’s a FACT.” That would arbitrary, because I didn’t give any objective reason for my position. Rational people have reasons for what they believe, but evolutionists are often very arbitrary.]

I apologise for reifying, whatever that is. I have already explained what I meant, though my words were scarcely ambiguous.

[Forgiven. Reification is the act of attributing a concrete or personal characteristic to an abstraction. For example, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” Reification is fine in poetry. But when used as part of a logical argument, it is fallacious, particularly when used to obscure a relevant point (such as the fact that scientists disagree on certain issues).]

“And yet, you have failed to prove this to be true.” Doing so-called science where you are required always to make evidence ‘confirm’ the book of Genesis and nothing else is NOT doing science properly, because there is no guarantee you will get a true and correct answer or conclusion.

[The irony is this: if evolution were true, then there would be no reason to think that scientific procedures would EVER give a true and correct answer or conclusion. In a chance universe, literally anything can happen. Science is predicated upon the order imposed on nature by God and maintained by God.]

“…when they wouldn’t dare try and publish in the creationists peer-reviewed journals”. Why would anyone want to try to publish a science paper in a religious journal that is only peer-reviewed by fundamentalist Christians?

[Because Christians have the only worldview that makes science possible. Why would anyone want to try to publish a science paper in a religious journal that is only peer-reviewed by evolutionists? Since evolution would render science foundationless, it makes no sense.]

“The Bible is the basis for science, therefore if anything that we interpret in science contradicts the Bible it is necessarily false.” Who is being arbitrary now?

[Ashley doesn’t seem to understand what ‘arbitrary’ means. It means ‘not having an objective reason.’ We have a very good reason to interpret evidence in light of God’s Word; for one, God’s Word is what makes science possible. To believe in the methods of science without accepting their foundation in Scripture – now THAT’S arbitrary.]

“It is, though you may not think it is.” It is not – because eg the Laws of Thermodynamics are REAL and not something made up by ‘arbitrary’ scientists. They have been DISCOVERED.

[How can you have laws without a Law-giver? If God did not uphold the universe in a consistent and rational way, how could there be any underlying laws to discover?]

“How do you know this? More importantly how do you know 2+2 will always equal 4 in even this universe?” I fear that you are being serious.

[I fear that Ashley cannot answer this simple question. How does he know – on his worldview – that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging? Can he answer that without begging the question (without assuming what he is trying to prove?)]

“If you can’t provide a reason for why we should believe mathematics is invariant, then that is arbitrary.” NO. The onus is on YOU to prove that maths CAN vary.

[This is the fallacy of shifting the burden. Many things change in this universe. The creationist has a good reason to believe that laws of mathematics do NOT change – since they are rooted in the unchanging nature of God. But can Ashley give us any good reason why laws of mathematics do not change – according to his professed worldview? Apparently not.]

“A Godless universe could not account for the laws of nature. There would be no justification for them.” That is your OPINION.

[Actually Ashley has demonstrated Micah’s claim. Ashley cannot find any reason whatsoever for laws of nature in his worldview. He has no justification for them.]

You’ve yet to show this to be true.” You may wish to read my lengthy review of Jonathan Sarfati’s ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution’ at Amazon.com.

[Can we presume that Ashley uses the same types of argument there? (i.e. logical fallacies, arbitrary unwarranted claims, misrepresentation of his opponent’s position?) If so, then it’s pretty much a time-waster.]

“Creationists do not object to historical science”. Jason – do you agree with that?

[Yes. Micah is right. Creationists do historical science as well, such as Oard’s ice age model, or Baumgardner’s plate tectonic model. Ashley – you need to actually read some creationist literature, to find out what it is you’re against.]

If so, then why do YECs insist that you can ONLY draw valid conclusions about the distant, unobserved, past if you have an ‘eye-witness’ (and the eye-witness is the author of Genesis).

[Another straw-man fallacy. Creationists do believe that it is possible to make reasonable inferences about the past in some cases, even if there is no eye-witness. However, when it comes to answering questions about the past a reliable eye-witness account is far better than circumstantial forensic evidence. We would also note that it is seldom possible to answer historical questions with the methods of science, because science requires repeatability, and the past can never be repeated.]

In other words, the evidence cannot tell scientists anything on its own – that is NOT a scientific position but a faith position.

[The reason evidence cannot tell scientists anything on its own is because evidence cannot talk. Rocks don’t say, “Hello there. Do you know how old I am? Well, I’ll tell you.” Ashley has committed another fallacy of reification. Scientists create propositional statements based on their understanding of physical evidence as interpreted according to their worldview. The idea that evidence means something apart from an interpretive worldview is a blind faith position.]

How is the science creationist do ‘replacement’ science? You have yet to demonstrate that this is the case.” Sorry, what is your question? I don’t understand your words.

“Why should there be universal, invariant laws that dont change with time?” Why shouldn’t there (if the Bible is not literal historical truth, or if Christianity is false, or if God doesn’t exist)? Maths, matter and energy definitely exist. God does not ‘definitely’ exist though.

[Ashley again demonstrates the arbitrariness of evolutionism. Rational people have a good reason for what they believe. Ashley doesn’t. His response shows this. If I said, “young lady, why do believe that there is a monster in the closet?” and she answered, “why shouldn’t there be a monster in the closet?” would that be rational? Ashley apparently believes universal, invariant laws – but he has absolutely no reason to believe them on his professed worldview. Arbitrary.]

“Yes, because animals fleeing from the rising waters is a completely ridiculous notion.” I fear that the ‘scholarly works’ referred to by Jason (he used to work for Answers in Genesis) advocate exactly that!

[Ashley seems to have missed the verbal irony.]

“I have no doubt that the evidence is real, its the conclusions drawn from the evidence i’m worried about.” Of course you are, because they do not bolster your faith and because YECs have been unable to show scientifically that these conclusions are incorrect.

[The truth of the matter is that science confirms the Christian worldview starting with Genesis. But evolutionists suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-20).]

“Also we did not misconstrue your words, we just took them at face value. It was your fault because you worded it improperly.” Utter garbage. If I thought my phrase was unclear as it stood, I would have spelt out in my detail what I meant (as I have since done).

“No, because its the interpretation of the evidence that creationist disagree with.” My point stands.

Are you suggesting science is a conspiracy to deliberately interpret evidence that ‘supports’ the Bible in ways which either DON’T support the Bible or YECs like yourself THINK don’t support it (yes of course you ARE)?

[No, ‘science’ is our ally. But evolutionist do interpret evidence that really confirms Scripture in a fallacious way, either deliberately or from culpable ignorance (Romans 1:18-20).]

And how do supernovae ‘support the Bible’? Or electricity?

[Both of these are processes guided by the consistent clockwork operation of the universe, made possible by the fact that God upholds the universe in a consistent way, and promises to continue to do so (e.g. Genesis 8:22). Apart from the Christian worldview, neither of these things would make sense.]

You STILL have not answered my question about the Oort Cloud ‘not’ being sensible. ALL you have done is imply that a young solar system is ‘more’ sensible – despite a world of real evidence showing it to be absurd.

[And what evidence would that be? I’ve been studying astronomy for many years, and have yet to find any compelling evidence for an ‘old’ (billions of years) solar system. But there are many physical processes in the solar system that cannot last anywhere close to billions of years. Comets are merely one example.]

“Doing observations and experiments is already assuming what your trying to prove…”. That is nonsense. Experiments are designed to test provisional theories – which may be confirmed or disproven.

[Ashley has missed this crucial point. Experiments can only be used to test provisional theories IF there is underlying order in the universe. But evolutionists have no bases for assuming such an underlying order. Therefore, they have no reason to think that experiments should be useful in testing provisional theories. Ashley has again begged the question.]

YECs are seemingly obsessed with the idea that real science is as blinkered as ‘creation science’ – that is the kind where you normally decide what must be true BEFOREHAND.

[Ashley, the only way ‘real science’ (as you put it) would be possible is if the Christian worldview is true, all the way back to Genesis. We’ve demonstrated this many times in many ways. Regarding deciding what must be true in advance, no one comes to evidence with a totally blank slate – for even the assumption that our senses are reliable is something that scientists assume in advance. Since we all come to the evidence with presuppositions, the question is this: which presuppositions are compatible with the science we are using? The answer is creationist presuppositions. Evolutionary presuppositions would render science without a foundation.]

Thanks for taking the time to try and deal with my arguments.

I’m sure you are totally sincere and probably a pleasant individual. However – like the North Korean population – I fear you are a victim of indoctrination (I mean by YEC dogma not the Christian gospel).

[Irony. Since Ashley hasn’t provided a single non-fallacious argument for his position, it seems that he is simply repeating the claims that he has heard. It appears that he is indeed quite indoctrinated with evolutionism/naturalism.]

Ashley"

EDIT: BRIEF COMMENTS ON LISLE

- "People visiting this blog might think that Ashley is a fictional person that I made up to make the evolutionists look bad – by pretending to be an evolutionist and posting absurd arguments full of logical fallacies and demonstrably false claims, making it look like evolutionists have a problem with basic reading comprehension." And your evidence for this claim is precisely WHAT, Jason? Kindly Put Up or Shut Up;- "Why would anyone want to try to publish a science paper in a religious journal that is only peer-reviewed by evolutionists? Since evolution would render science foundationless, it makes no sense". I suggest that you would TRY if you thought you had a disproof of evolution and something which would convert people to fundamentalist Christianity - but all you have is your apologetics;- "How does he know – on his worldview – that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging?" The question is STUPID;- "It appears that he is indeed quite indoctrinated with evolutionism/naturalism." Said the anti-science fundamentalist.

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:55 am, edited 2 times in total.

You appear to be playing with words, and I see little point in repeating what I have already said.

[We know the feeling.]

“How can some evidence be real and other evidence not?” I never suggested that. All evidence studied by scientists is real ‘natural’ evidence. However, the Bible is not scientific evidence (it could have been had it turned out to have been scientifically correct).

“Science will always confirm the Bible. Not because creationist make it that way, because the Bible is the foundation for science.” But it DOESN’T confirm Genesis. That is why YECs complain, invent ‘creation science’, and publish their own journals disagreeing with mainstream science.

[Actually, the very existence of science confirms Genesis. Genesis tells us that there are and will continue to be cycles in nature, such as the seasons and day and night (Genesis 8:22). Science confirms this, and in fact is based on this crucial presupposition. Genesis teaches that organisms reproduce according to their kind (e.g. Genesis 6:19-20), and this is exactly what science has confirmed. Note that science does not confirm evolution; we have never observed an organism coming from non-life, or one kind of organism change into a fundamentally different kind.]

Real scientific laws are NOT arbitrary.

[That’s the point. If evolution were true, then there would be no basis for believing in laws of nature; any belief in them would be arbitrary. But there are laws of nature, and belief in them is not arbitrary. Therefore… ]

“I’m quite serious, you assume the laws of mathematics are invariant and unchanging but you have no basis to believe this is true in an evolutionary worldview.” “I did not make the claim that the laws of mathematics can vary.” You contradict yourself.

[Ashley seems to have some trouble with reading comprehension. Micah pointed out that Ashley believes “the laws of mathematics are invariant and unchanging” and yet Ashley has no basis for such a belief in his own worldview; so he is being arbitrary.]

And the way you keep repeating slogans does suggest indoctrination.

[Irony. Ashley’s entire position seems to be nothing but the repeated catchphrases that evolutionists like to use instead of evidence, like “creation isn’t real science” etc. Notice that Ashley has not made a single cogent argument in all of his comments thus far. He simply assumes that he is right, and then demeans creationists. This does suggest indoctrination.]

“Any evidence we have in the present is going to be contaminated by a persons presuppositions.” Like I said YECs object to ‘historical science’.

[That’s another straw-man argument. We do historical science at times. But we recognize that historical science does not have the falsifiability that makes operational science so powerful. And we further realize that a person’s philosophy and view of history will strongly influence his or her interpretation of the evidence, particularly in matters of historical science.]

“You need to provide a reason, based on your worldview, for why invariant laws should exists and why the material universe feels compelled to obey these immaterial laws.” I do not know whether God exists or not, but even if he does not that is the way things are. The existence of unvarying scientific laws (YECs say they DO vary by the way) are NO proof of God.

[Ashley makes a very obvious blunder here. He cannot answer Micah’s objection. So he simply says, “that is the way things are.” Now imagine if I used that sort of poor reasoning in a debate. Suppose Ashley asked me how I know creation is true, and I said, “that’s just the way things are.” Would that be a reasonable response? Evolutionists often demand rational answers from others, when they refuse to reason rationally about their own worldview. Unless Ashley can find another sensible explanation for the existence and properties of laws of nature, we must rationally conclude that the Christian God does indeed exist.]

[Ashley believes lots of things – invariant laws of mathematics, laws of nature, etc. But he cannot give us a reason for them on his worldview. This is arbitrary. To be arbitrary in a debate is really the same thing as conceding defeat. Debates are about who has the best reasons for their position. To be arbitrary, to not have a reason at all, is therefore to lose the debate. Thanks for playing Ashley.]

As I said experiments are designed to test provisional theories – which may be confirmed or disproven.

[Experiments are only useful in testing provisional theories if there is already known to be an underlying orderliness to nature. But since evolutionists cannot account for the latter on their own worldview, they have no reason to believe in the former. That’s the point. Ashley continues to miss it.]

Your reply is just playing with words.

[The opposite is true. Micah has made a devastating argument that Ashley simply cannot answer. That’s why Ashley is forced to give the intellectually bankrupt answer, “that’s the way things are.”]

“This is just not true, creationists don’t decide what must be true before hand. They just understand that all science will confirm the Bible.” So you decide that anything contradicting the Bible is ‘false’. That is not science, it is an abuse of science.

[So do evolutionists decide that anything contradicting naturalism is false? If there is c-14 in dinosaur fossils, or diamonds, would an evolutionist automatically dismiss such evidence for a young earth and assume contamination for no other reason than that it contradicts evolution? You bet. Is Ashley bothered by this? Apparently not.]

""Wow! Robert wins by knockout blow. Very nice.” (New comment by Jason.) After quoting the exchanges with Robert, my post at the BCSE community forum included my thoughts on Robert’s question that I ignored (I’ve mentioned in other posts here that some of my postings have been reproduced at the BCSE community forum (in case of censorship). And indeed I have just discovered, days after I posted them, that Jason has part-censored some of my postings and has inserted [abusive ad hominem fallacy cut]).[Editor: unwarranted character attacks are unethical, unscholarly, and not permitted on this site. Most sites would remove the post entirely and ban the commenter. I have been very gracious with Ashley, leaving all his non-libelous comments untouched.]

As far as I recall, when answering a post by another participant here, I referred to the post by Robert which I ignored as containing an ‘idiot question’. Thus not answering an idiot question is not conceding victory – and Robert has not suggested that it was.

[translation: "I can't answer that question. It's too hard. So I'm going to call it an 'idiot question' and hope that no one notices."]

I will now check exactly what Jason censored.

[only the unethical character assassinations were cut. However, if Ashley continues to act like a child, he will have to post elsewhere.]"

Jason is looking for an excuse to ban me! Lest his followers might discover they have been misled by him.

But, in the absence of me having provided one to date, instead he will attack me and misrepresent me 'behind my back'.

Brief comment on Lisle's false allegations. - "I can't answer that question. It's too hard. So I'm going to call it an 'idiot question' and hope that no one notices". You are a LIAR, Jason. It WAS an idiot question. I have already explained WHY on the BCSE site, and linked to the BCSE site on Jason's site. On 13 April I wrote on the BCSE site that it appeared that Robert was being "deliberately obtuse" and added "The opinion that Earth was flat was pre-scientific - I cannot believe he is such an idiot not to realise that";- Jason's talk of 'character assassination' is utter hypocrisy given his comments in square brackets.

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

“But the burden of proof is on you.” Bullying for God? Your so-called science is unfalsifiable in your eyes I believe.

[Fallacy of irrelevant thesis.]

“Creationists have demonstrated many times how all the supposed evidence fits within a biblical framework.” Not by science they haven’t. Only by make-believe.

[This is merely a question-begging epithet. Again, Ashley makes a claim but offers no supporting evidence.]

“Why would they publish papers if they didn’t think the science confirmed Genesis?” If they really think that they are deluded.

[Ashley’s wording here is somewhat ambiguous, but I believe he means that “creationists are deluded if they think science confirms Genesis.” If this is what Ashley means then he really hasn’t studied the topic. Genetics, geology, astronomy, and so on all confirm Genesis. Just as one example, we find c-14 in virtually everything that has carbon in it, no matter how deep in the geologic column. But c-14 cannot last even 1 million years. So it is compelling evidence for a ‘young’ earth, as described in Genesis.]

“i’m getting tired of repeating myself”. Me too because you are (collectively) anti-science and pay no attention and just keep repeating slogans …

[Slogans like “but that’s not science”, “real science says…”, or “you’re anti-science”? It’s hard to defend such statements when evolutionist cannot even make sense of the existence of science considering it is based on creation principles.]

[“idiot questions”? In other words, questions that Ashley cannot answer because they have no answer from an evolutionary perspective. Even very simple questions like “why is it wrong to lie?” simply cannot be answered in any meaningful way from an evolutionary standpoint.]

You are clearly indoctrinated against science. You have to be because it is no friend to young Earth creationists. That’s just the way things are.

[The ironic thing is, science would not be possible if Ashley’s worldview were true. So if anything, it is Ashley who is against science. We creationists love science. I even obtained a Ph.D. in science because I enjoy it so much. Science confirms creation, and is no friend to old-earthers and evolutionists. That’s just the way things are.]

“because there is no justification for why they should be invariant or unchanging in that worldview”. That is just assertion and dogma.

[Then what is the justification for these things in Ashley’s worldview? He can’t say. Ashley believes in the invariant, unchanging nature of these laws, but has no logical reason to believe that on his own worldview. He believes in evolution for no rational reason. Ironically, Ashley has demonstrated conclusively that his believe in evolution is just “assertion and dogma.”]

“your worldview must be the correct one or you will come to the wrong conclusions about the past.” GARBAGE.

[Wow! What a well-thought-out rebuttal! Sarcasm aside, evolutionists cannot deal with difficult ideas. They tend to be very shallow thinkers, and simply spout rhetoric like “garbage” when they cannot answer the tough questions.]

[Editor’s note: Ashley had made an unwarranted character attack on Micah (an abusive ad hominem fallacy) which was repeated here. This was cut because such unethical and unscholarly behavior is not permitted on this site. I do allow guests to comment on my blog, but they must behave themselves and not act like a 2-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.]

“Creationist don’t deny uniformity in nature. They deny uniformitarianism. The first address the natural laws(the ones we’ve been discussing so far), the latter addresses conditions and processes. Laws do not change, conditions and processes do.” Lisle gobbledygook.

[Hardly. Micah has made a crucial distinction that would be recognized as such by any rational individual. There is a difference between conditions and laws of nature. For example, the conditions in the core of the sun are very different than on the surface of the ocean. But the same laws of physics apply equally well in both locations. Ashley doesn’t seem to recognize this obvious difference.]

He is saying that scientific constants for want of a better term can vary (vastly) over time, yet we know that the constants in question do NOT vary.

[Here Ashley reveals his ignorance of physics. In fact, scientists have proved that decay rates can be changed by a factor of a billion or more under certain circumstances, such as bound state beta decay. Moreover, we have compelling evidence that this has in fact been the case in the past. Ashley would have known this if he bothered to study what it is he argues against.]

You are just quibbling about whether he was referring to laws/processes/constants or something else.

[There is a crucial difference between laws of nature, processes of nature, and constants of nature. Ashley apparently doesn’t know the difference. But the difference is crucial to science.]

The point is that Lisle engages in highly far-fetched special pleading to force evidence to confirm to his understanding of Genesis. That is NOT science. It is fantasy.

[Just the opposite. It is the evolutionists that must appeal to far-fetched special pleading (undetectable Oort clouds, undetectable contamination, etc.) to force the evidence to confirm to their belief in evolution. Why does Ashley not see this?]

“The Oort cloud is a perfect example of and Ad hoc explanation proposed by evolutionists. Rubbish. Do all comets approach the Sun from close to the ecliptic (the orbital plane of Earth, which is similar to that for the other seven planets) which might be the case of they all came from the Kuiper Belt/Scattered Disk? No, they certainly do not.

[Ashley presents another bifurcation fallacy: either (long period) comets come from a Kuiper Belt or an Oort cloud. And they don’t come from the Kuiper Belt… So… But he doesn’t even consider the possibility that long period comets orbit just as they have been, and that the reason we cannot detect any evidence of an Oort cloud is because it isn’t there. Why is that possibility rejected out-of-hand? Answer: because it doesn’t fit Ashley’s beliefs in evolution.]

But YECs normally hate details like this and love uttering slogans and attacking real scientists. For Jesus presumably. It won’t wash. If I am wrong God is a big liar in his creation.

[Ironically, Ashley hasn’t presented any detailed argument that actually supports evolution. He just keeps stating the evolutionary slogans over and over: “That’s not science! Science says…, Rubbish, real scientists say…, etc.” Ironically, Ashley has been ignoring the details of what makes science possible, and has been attacking real scientists (creation scientists like me) for many posts now. And finally, if evolution were true, then God would be a liar for telling us in His Word that He created in six-days.]

“The RATE group has provided very detailed analysis of how radioactive decay rates are not constant so no, your claim is false.” The RATE group’s research is FRAUDULENT. Trust me. Or read what non-YECs say about it.

[And what evidence does Ashley present to back up his claim? The same evidence that he always provides: absolutely nothing. I like the “Trust me” part. Considering all the false claims and logical fallacies that Ashley has posted on this very site, I think we have some very good reasons not to take his word for it. He ends this section with another faulty appeal to authority.]

“If it was merely an assumption it would have been easily refuted by you.” No. It is an assumption not a fact because you cannot prove it to be true. You just assert it to be true, dogmatically.

[Irony. Does Ashley really not see the irony in his statement?]

“God has revealed himself in His Word.” That’s what the Muslims say too.

[The Christian worldview as revealed in Scripture makes senses of the preconditions of intelligibility. It makes science and knowledge possible. The Muslim worldview as revealed in the Koran does not. Now, there are Muslims who believe in the methods of science. But they cannot account for such methods. So Muslims are in the same intellectually embarrassing position as Ashley.]

“But in an evolutionary worldview, why would it be wrong to lie?” Yawn. I was – sorry to say this – speaking the truth.

[Unsurprisingly, Ashley was not able to answer this simple question. This just goes to show how intellectually bankrupt evolutionism really is.]

“Show how some evidence does not fit with the Bible.” The existence of supernovae.

[That would be very good evidence if the Bible stated, “stars do not explode.” But the Bible doesn’t say that. So we are left to wonder why Ashley thought this didn’t fit with Scripture.]

“No one is impartial.” YECs are probably the least impartial people on the planet when it comes to science.

[That’s a tu quoque fallacy. And it’s not true. Scientists are able to make great strides in research once the shackles of naturalism/uniformitarianism are removed. Our own research here at ICR demonstrates this.]

(Well that last comment is a blatant lie.)

JASON'S COMMENTS HERE ARE SOME OF HIS MOST UNPLEASANT- "I do allow guests to comment on my blog, but they must behave themselves and not act like a 2-year-old throwing a temper tantrum." YECs are more interested in demonising their critics than in discussing science;- "Here Ashley reveals his ignorance of physics. In fact, scientists have proved that decay rates can be changed by a factor of a billion or more under certain circumstances, such as bound state beta decay. Moreover, we have compelling evidence that this has in fact been the case in the past. Ashley would have known this if he bothered to study what it is he argues against." I am not as clever as you, Jason, but I HAVE studied science and I HAVE studied YEC claims - for years. See my review of Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth' at Amazon.com. YECs have NO evidence whatsoever that radioactive decay rates could or did change ie accelerate vastly in the particular way they REQUIRE around 4,300 years or so ago WITHOUT rendering the Earth UNINHABITABLE. None;- "attacking real scientists (creation scientists like me)...". The only people who think Jason is a 'real scientist' are other 'creation scientists' - those who reject SWATHES of science;- "So we are left to wonder why Ashley thought this didn’t fit with Scripture". I thought you were a clever astronomer/cosmologist, Jason. Stars do NOT go supernova after just 6,000 years of existence.

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

"I feel I should clarify. I do not find the tone adopted by anyone towards me here uncivil or objectionable. And I admit that some of my later responses have been curt. I was a bit taken aback by the style of debate. As I commented at the BCSE community forum a couple of hours ago at 10.22 am BST, “If I sound angry, it’s because these YECs attempt to mug critics with bad logic and expect a higher standard of proof from their opponents than they think they have to offer themselves”.

[Ashley, with all respect, take a look at all the logical fallacies (bad logic) that you have committed on this very blog. You have made straw-man arguments, bifurcation fallacies, question-begging epithets, begging the question, reification, fallacies of irrelevant thesis, faulty appeals to authority/majority, and so on. And you often make claims without any supporting evidence whatsoever, saying “it just is” or something like that. But then you hold creationists to a much higher standard of proof, expecting us to give good (non-fallacious) reasons for our position, something that you are apparently unable to do for your own position.]

I was alluding in part to the repeated insistence that ‘in an evolutionary world/worldview’ any reasoning not based on the Bible, even reasoning based on rational and scientific interpretations of material evidence, is ‘arbitrary’.

[How could it not be arbitrary in a chance universe? Let me explain with an analogy. You know those old “magic 8 ball” toys? They contained an icosahedron suspended in liquid, and when you would shake the ball, one of the sides of the icosahedron would surface in the window, and it had printing on it like “yes” or “very doubtful”, or “ask again later.” You were supposed to ask the ball a question, shake it, and it would tell you the answer. Of course, the answer it gave was completely random, dependent in a non-computable way only upon the details of how the ball was shaken. So would you have a good reason to trust the “reasoning” of a magic 8-ball? Of course not. Its answers are simply the result of random interactions of molecules.]

[Now, if evolution were true, then the same could be said of our brains. They would be merely the result of random interactions of molecules, ones that perhaps conveyed some sort of survival value. So why would you arbitrarily assume that the brain has the ability to be rational? How can the brain – a bunch of chemicals – evaluate the various options and then choose the rational one? After all, chemicals have no choice. So you see, if evolution were true, then really you should not trust that your brain or your senses are reliable. Nor could you rely upon the consensus of scientists – like would be like trusting in the average of a bunch of magic 8 balls. ]

[Not only would there be no reason to trust the brain, but there would be no reason to expect the universe to behave in a consistent and predictable way. But the methods of science are predicated upon the notion that the universe behaves in a logical and consistent way – otherwise observation and experimentation would be completely pointless. To trust in the methods of science is perfectly appropriate – if science itself is justified. But I cannot see how science could ever be justified in an evolutionary universe. ]

[Keep in mind, I don’t dispute that the methods of science are useful, and that our brains have the ability to be rational, because these things make sense in a Christian, creation-based worldview. My question is: if evolution were true, what reason would you have to trust in the methods of science? If you have no answer to that, then it is arbitrary – by definition.]

Scientific interpretations are limited and constrained by what has and has not been uncovered as natural ‘evidence’.

[(1) Is science the limit of knowledge? In other words, is it possible for something to be true, and known to be true apart from the scientific method? Or is the scientific method the only way to learn truth? (2) Does science allow for the existence of things that cannot be measured by the tools of science?]

I cannot accept a stipulation that reasoning is purely ‘arbitrary’ when it comes to collective reasoning that starts with the evidence and natural processes, rather than with scriptures.

[By this statement, it would be non-arbitrary to use a large collection of magic 8 balls to determine what is true. It’s a purely natural process and is collective reasoning.]

This seems, well, unfair. And starting with scriptures is circular reasoning ie you must somehow reach a conclusion that confirms scripture though you are often looking at things like fossils which are never mentioned in the Bible.

[Assuming that your mind is rational for the sake of proving that your mind is rational is circular. My argument for Scripture is not that it’s true because it says it is – that would be fallacious. Rather my argument is that the Bible alone makes sense of those things that you take for granted arbitrarily, like the usefulness of science. Without Christianity science would be arbitrary (as we have seen) – but science is not arbitrary. Therefore, Christianity is true.]

[Again, the fact that the Bible doesn’t mention everything that exists is not a good reason to reject it. Ashley, you have not mentioned everything that exists in your posts. Should I therefore reject them as untrue? The Bible alone provides a worldview that can make sense of the methods of science, the human mind’s ability to be rational, and yes even specific lines of evidence such as fossils.]"

“What you may not understand is that biblical creationism is not, “Evidence says this, but the Bible says this, so we have to reinterpret the evidence.” It is more, “Evolutionists look at the evidence and come to conclusions contrary to biblical ideas, but really the evidence can fit perfectly with the Bible.”

Except that when you examine the specific ways in which young Earth creationists ‘explain’ evidence as a ‘perfect’ fit to the book of Genesis it is always far-fetched, …

[Far-fetched by what standard? Evolutionists believe that you are distant cousins with an onion, that birds are descended from fish, and that the universe was created by a “big bang.” I’d call that far-fetched.]

…whereas the true and more complex scientific explanation – which YECs must claim is ‘wrong’ or ‘unverifiable’ – is much more compelling and convincing.

[“compelling and convincing” to whom? Evolutionists? But that begs the question. Also “more complex” explanations are rejected in science due to a principle called “Occam’s Razor.” Since evolution would make science impossible, and since biblical creation is the foundation for science, we must remember that the “scientific explanation” is the creation one, not the evolution one.]

Please be reminded that I have ALREADY posted a detailed example of that. My rebuttal of where JB’s Amazon.com book review of ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ by Dawkins sought to argue that Dawkins’ criticism of how YECs force the record of fossil burial to be explained by Noah’s Flood alone is ‘in error’ (my phrase not his – as this is briefer than repeating JB’s actual words).

Which rebuttal JB has twice ignored – and everybody here has so far totally ignored it too. Suggesting that YECs ignore rebuttals to their claim as well as awkward evidence/unwelcome interpretations of the evidence.

[The ironic thing is that Ashley has ignored the many rebuttals posted here. He has yet to explain how science would be possible in an evolutionary universe, how laws of logic could exist and have their properties, how laws of nature could exist and their properties, etc.]

This is just the way things are.

[Arbitrary. How does Ashley know that things are that way? Ashley behaves as if the universe is upheld by God as Scripture teaches, such that there are universal and invariant laws of logic, laws of nature, and laws of morality. But he has no justification for these things on his own worldview, as he has just admitted. His faith system is blind.]

And it’s not down to me but down to either God or Nature.

[The Christian God makes sense of the things necessary for science and knowledge. But “nature” apart from God cannot.]

the Bible isn’t scientific.

[Ashley keeps making this arbitrary claim, but he provides no evidence for it whatsoever. Yet, we have shown that the biblical worldview is the necessary precondition for science.]

YEC behaviour merely serves to highlight this, and is misguided in as much as it may turn people off the Bible altogether (thus secularists may not mind that much).

[If people are chemical accidents, then why would it matter? Ashley’s concern betrays that fact that he really does know that God created the universe.]

“I suppose the question I would really like to ask you at this point is, “Why does creation bother you so much?” I don’t suppose you participate in debates with Shinto scientists or post on forums “campaigning against the influence of Hindu reincarnational studies in the UK classroom.”” Indeed, not. I’ve never been a follower of Shinto or Hindu religion.

[Ashley didn’t answer the question. The reason that Christianity is often singled out for persecution is because it is true. And people know it in their hearts, even if they suppress it with their lips.]

By the way, I have been banned (or censored) on or from other YEC discussions like this (for spurious reason ie I was not abusive or rudely attacking Christianity is general). If interested, see: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3201